Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 133608 (MAD)

Jeyaramalingam S v. The Tahsildar

WP(MD)/15989/2025 · 2025-06-13

S Sounthar

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.06.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025 S.Jeyaramalingam ... Petitioner (Minor represented through his father E.Selvam) Vs 1 The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. 2 Erulappa Pillai ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to cancel the previous patta No.637 in S.No.163/52 an extent of 900 Sq. feet vacant house site at Thirumangalam Municipality, Ward 12, and represented this matter to the first respondent, dated on 07.04.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Palanirajan For Respondent 1 : Mrs.K.Malathi, Addl. Govt. Pleader. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed, seeking a direction to first respondent to cancel the patta issued in Patta No.637 in favour of second respondent. 2. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25138 of 2024, seeking a direction to the respondent to issue patta in his name, by considering his representation, dated 20.09.2024. The said writ petition was ordered, directing the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.09.2024, within a period of eight weeks. If the representation of the petitioner was not considered as directed by this court, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. 3. Now, the petitioner filed another representation before first respondent, seeking cancellation of earlier patta issued in favour of second respondent in Patta No.637. However, in the representation, the petitioner has not stated how he has got right over the subject property. He only referred to the order passed in the earlier writ petition. Since the petitioner has not mentioned his right over the property in his representation, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to consider his representation. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 13.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dixit To: The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025 S.SOUNTHAR, J. dixit W.P.(MD) No.15989 of 2025 13.06.2025 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis